Faced with rising oil prices and waning oil reserves around the world, this is the era in which the world’s energy `portfolio will forever change. I view “peak oil ” as occurring the moment that alternative energies become more affordable than continued oil exploration, refinement, and distribution. As long as we are willing to pay more for oil, we will continue to receive oil. But, as soon as we are willing to break our addiction and fully invest in alternative energies, we will forever free ourselves. This change is in the near future. President Obama has spoken out against U.S. dependence on foreign oil, not only because it is a strains our economy, but also for the threats it poses to our national security.1
So, where do we get our power, if not from oil? How do we drive to work, if not with gasoline? What will fuel the everyday operations of the nation? Personally, I do not see enough solar panels, windmills, or nuclear power plants operating around the nation for us to seriously consider them as an exclusive replacement source for our extraordinary energy demands. solar , what are the nation’s energy options? It may just be natural gas that gets the most votes…
Natural Gas: This colorless, odorless, abundant, and high-energy domestic fuel source is swe eping the nation. Not only can it be used to generate electricity in power plants, but it can even fuel modified vehicles in a compressed or liquid form.6 Since 2001, the percent of natural gas vehicles worldwide has increased by 24 percent.7 In the United States, 900 of the next 1000 power plants will use natural gas! Let’s look at the good, the bad, and the ugly of this emerging energy source…
The Good Side of Natural Gas
Some consider natural gas to be the “cleanest, safest, and most useful of all energy sources.”9 The majority of this combustible mix of hydrocarbon gasses is methane, but it also includes ethane, propane, butane and pentane.10 Like oil, natural gas is formed deep in the earth from pressure on organic matter over millions of years. Unlike oil, natural gas takes intense heat to form, which is why deposits are located deeper in the earth (sometimes 1-2 miles).11 Once the gas is formed, it will rise to the surface due to its low density. Sometimes it makes it all the way to the top, but often, it is absorbed in porous sedimentary rock capped by an impermeable rock layer. Once this formation is drilled, the gas will often release itself due to the pressure difference, making extraction rather simple. However, as technology has improved, we have been receiving an increased supply of natural gas from “unconventional” sources.12 Unconventional sources are simply those that are less economical to extract—examples include deep natural gas (15,000 feet or deeper), tight gas (under great pressure under impenetrable hard rock), and shale gas (very soft sedimentary rock).13
In 2010, natural gas accounted for about 20% of the United States’ electricity generation.14 The cost of producing this electricity from natural gas was less than half than the cost when using petroleum, but around twice as much as when using coal.15 When considering price alone, coal is the clear winner, but when considering emissions and environmental degradation, natural gas appears to be the best option.
A major MIT report released in 2010 highlighted the fact that natural gas will play a dominant role in greenhouse gas reductions in the U.S. energy sector.17 This is largely due to the fact that new natural gas power plants can replace old inefficient coal fired power plants. With proper implementation and carbon emissions pricing, the U.S. could see a 50% reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2050.18 Furthermore, natural gas is considered the cleanest of all fossil fuels and its use can reduce the emission of many harmful pollutants. In transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates significant pollutant reductions through the use of natural gas. Benefits of compressed natural gas versus gasoline include reducing carbon monoxide emissions by 90%-97%, carbon dioxide emissions by 25%, and nitrogen oxide emissions by 35%-60%. Another benefit is that natural gas emits fewer toxic and carcinogenic pollutants than petroleum/oil and emits little or no particulate matter.19These reductions in pollution, greenhouse gases, and particulates are a great reason to increase the role of natural gas in our transportation and energy sectors.
The Bad Side of Natural Gas
Since natural gas is combustible, that inherently means it is explosive. Not only can drilling for natural gas be dangerous—causing deadly explosions even in “routine” maintenance scenarios—but it also poses a threat to citizens and communities.20 In the first week of May 2011 alone, the U.S. saw a dozen natural gas related threats and several explosions.21 In September 2010 there was an enormous natural gas explosion of a PG&E pipeline in San Bruno, California that left eight dead and destroyed 53 homes.22 Some witnesses claimed the fire stretched 300 feet high with the initial explosion going even higher. With reports of leaking natural gas around the nation, people have become increasingly concerned with natural gas explosion risks. A recent Duke study disclosed a surprising level of natural gas leaking into water wells in New York and Pennsylvania from the Marcellus Shale Formation.23 This study further found that “[w]ells within 1 kilometer of gas drilling had 17 times more methane than more distant wells.”24
Concerning human health, the risks of methane consumption through the water supply are unknown as there have been very few investigative studies. Methane is largely considered non-poisonous, but it will displace oxygen if inhaled.25 Some feel that they are being misled by such statements, and claim that methane is toxic and responsible for many of their chronic health issues such as depression, headaches, nausea, and dizziness.26 However, this is largely speculative, and comprehensive studies have not been performed to confirm such claims.
The Ugly Side of Natural Gas
The greatest concern for environmental and human health is method in which natural gas in extracted. As unconventional methods of extraction become economically viable, they are pursued more readily, without full consideration of the consequences. The most rampant example is the extraction of shale gas. Thanks to technological achievements in horizontal drilling and a process known as hydraulic fracking, gas companies can now extract natural gas from shale rock formations. These shale extractions increased by an average annual growth rate of 48% from 2006-2010.28 Furthermore, future projections estimate that shale gas will make up 47% of total natural gas production by 2035.29 So what is the problem with shale gas?
With the percentage of shale gas extraction potentially increasing threefold by 2035, we must critically examine the effects of industry extraction techniques. The practice in question is known as hydraulic fracturing or “fracking.” It involves the high-pressure injection of sand, water, and chemicals into a well. This mixture cracks the shale and fills the cracks with sandy grit. The natural gas then escapes from the shale and travels through the grit, up the well, and to the surface.31
One concern with the “fracking” process is the chemicals that are pumped into the ground, that may end up in the groundwater and public water supplies. From 2005-2009, at least 750 different chemicals were used in the fracking process, many of which are known to cause human health issues in certain quantities.32 The EPA tried to gather what chemicals were being used, but the beauty for corporations is, many of the chemicals are “proprietary” or “trades secret,” so they claimed that could not disclose this information to the public.33 As a result, the EPA issued Halliburton—one of nine major companies that refused to comply—a subpoena for not disclosing their chemicals.34 Only more recently have companies begun to comply, and the public can more readily discover if they are near a well and what chemicals are being used by visiting: fracfocus.org. 35
Another issue is the wastewater left after extraction. It may contain corrosive salts and radioactive/carcinogenic materials.36 The natural gas can also escape into the water supply, the health implications of which are unknown. However, one outcome is known: flammable tap water is not out of the question, a fact highlighted in a recent documentary called GasLand which attempts to shed light on natural gas issues in the U.S.37 The New York Times also created an interactive map which highlights the toxic chemicals found in the wastewater of 149 Pennsylvania wells. This is a great resource to view just how toxic these waste sites can be, with 128 wells containing 1500 times the federal limit on gross alpha radiation.
To add insult to injury, these natural gas extraction methods may actually contribute more to global climate change than coal and petroleum based energies.39 Recent Cornell studies examine the potential for methane gas (one of the most potent greenhouse gases) to escape into the atmosphere during extraction. If this was the case, then all mitigating effects of natural gas against climate change would be lost, and we would be left with just another dirty energy. Unfortunately, this is a booming industry, and energy companies have little incentive to stop and check if they are harming the environment. The Obama administration has created a panel within the Department of Energy to address the concern of hydraulic fracking.40 Hopefully industry standards are revised as a result, or this nation may have another environmental disaster looming in its future.
The Verdict: Natural gas presents an excellent opportunity to reduce our dependence on petroleum and coal based electricity and even transportation fuel. However, if extraction techniques are not forced into environmental compliance, then we could be doing even more damage to human and environmental health.
